PowerSwitch

This saw horse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54uwF6Kgjjk

was mentioned a while back in a thread and took my interest, so I bought one.

I have now cut around 40 cubic metres using it, so I thought some of you may be interested in knowing whether it is worth the money or not (mine came to around £90 inc. delivery).

The short answer is yes, without any doubt at all IF you have a large amount to get through or time is an issue.

It took just 10 mins to assemble using a 10mm ring spanner, is light, robust and very easy to move from one spot to another. The cutting height is just about right from starting at the top to finishing at the bottom, no stress on your back.The supplied clamp is very handy and works well.

Problems? Not really, just make sure that you don't put poxy size branches at the top or your chain will send them into orbit, but that is the same whatever saw horse you use, put good size logs on top which you should be doing as standard practice anyway.

So far the chain has made glancing contact with the frame below the cradle once, there is a plastic guard there to stop your chain being blunted on the metal frame. This broke when contact was made and the chain hit metal, but so lightly no noticeable blunting of the chain.

If I get my act together I am sure I could bodge a more satisfactory way of shielding the frame, but I won't because it just isn't a big enough issue, the distance between the cradle and the frame is sufficient unless you are a total clod.

I have been comparing this item with a home made one I knocked up a couple of years ago with some spare 2" x 4" timber I had knocking about, and was going to make another one (until I saw this), then I had a think about how much timber I would have to buy, the time to build and the fact that I am three months behind on my cutting schedule due to a now vanquished illness, so time of the essence. The Oregon is a no brainer in comparison, way more portable, tough enough, totally practical.

Edit - I recommend a 16" bar minimum. I use a Stihl MS230 (16") and an MS290 (18"), the MS290 is completely unstressed, a bit more consideration for the MS230 required.

Useful, but there's a fair amount of log handling when you've finished cutting. http://flyingshavings.co.uk/2009/08/27/splitter/ shows the Buckingham woodstation. There are 3 sizes available at http://www.jocemetal.co.uk/page2.htm. Dearer than the oregon, but if you have lots of wood to deal with it can probably save an aching back. Picture of the small one at http://www.jocemetal.co.uk/userimages/025.JPG

I have to park my trailer on the road, and get across the stream on a couple of sleepers. A mini version for filling a wheelbarrow or handcart would be good!

40m3 is alot of wood! You must have an impressive wood stack

What type & size of wood are you cutting.Do you buy in wood or have you own large forest?



I think it was me who mentioned the oregeon as looking good. But i don't have one yet, but would get one if I had that much volume of wood to do.

That certainly looks neat, but isn't just a fancy version of the one I made out of wooden stakes and a couple of ratchet straps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJappc18OvI

To me it looks like the pros and cons are:

Oregon one:
- easy to set up
- mobile
- probably holds the logs fairly securely
- risk of hitting metal and blunting the chain
- somewhat limited on what length you can cut the logs to.
- £90

DIY 6 stakes and two ratchet straps:
- free, if you already have the straps
- size is only limited by space you have and the length of your chainsaw bar - mine holds about 2m length, 0.6m width and fill up to chest height, in practice giving about 1m3 of logs per fill, after allowing for the bearers at the bottom.
- pretty flexible on log length, as long as you put the stakes in the right place
- Very little metal you might hit - just the strap buckle, which is easy to place out of the way.
- The downside is it's immobile, but you can put stakes in the ground in more than one place, and just take the saw/straps/trailer to them.

I'd be interested to know what volume of logs you can get through the Oregon one per fill?

Phew! It's ok for you Mike, but I could never get a trailer load cut and loaded as fast as that.

Woodburner – yes, I would have gone for one of those but the access into the woods isn't good enough for a pickup, and those things are heavy. I get in and out with a Kawasaki Mule size ATV (Ingersoll Rand model) plus small trailer

Lurker – My woods, 23 acres

Mike – I use your stake method too when coppicing, I set up a couple of 'stations' in strategic areas, but at the moment I am thinning, working in several different areas, it's all too much hassle, the Oregon is just so quick to pick up and move. Haven't measured how much per fill. To cut handling I load the logs into crates then load into the ATV and trailer, then chuck the crate contents into the log store, much quicker than loose loading/unloading.

eatyourveg wrote:Edit - I recommend a 16" bar minimum. I use a Stihl MS230 (16") and an MS290 (18"), the MS290 is completely unstressed, a bit more consideration for the MS230 required.

I'll agree with that as I go one better and use 20 inch bars exclusively. The longer the bar the less tendency for kick back there is as there is more weight in front of your left hand on the handle which is the point of rotation. You can't always count on the chain brake working and even a stopped chain will do a number on your face if it snaps back fast enough to knock your helmet off.
As I said in the other thread I'm against metal saw horses from a chain sharpening point of view but if it works for you enjoy it.
I do about ten cord per year from trees that are two feet through at the stump to top brush and I don't put any of it in a horse, just saw it where it falls to length then haul to the splitter. Have you ever counted the number of times you pick up and move a stick of wood between stump to stove? The average is about seven but some people manage quite a few more based on how they are set up.

woodburner wrote:Phew! It's ok for you Mike, but I could never get a trailer load cut and loaded as fast as that.

It was actually about 90mins work, and I didn't stop as it would've spoiled the timelapse video...

When I saw the title I thought it was a new play...

woodburner wrote:Useful, but there's a fair amount of log handling when you've finished cutting. http://flyingshavings.co.uk/2009/08/27/splitter/ shows the Buckingham woodstation. There are 3 sizes available at http://www.jocemetal.co.uk/page2.htm. Dearer than the oregon, but if you have lots of wood to deal with it can probably save an aching back. Picture of the small one at http://www.jocemetal.co.uk/userimages/025.JPG

I can recommend the Buckingham Woodstation. I also like the fact that he makes them himself (and seemed a really nice guy when I went to collect mine a few years back)

I liked the one that fits on the side of a trailer and tips in direct. My problem is that my 2.5 tonne capacity trailer has sides that are seven foot high (2.5m) at the top. I would need a three foot high ladder or platform to load, cut and tip it.


It's 2.5 tonnes to the top and I need two or three of those per year to do all my and my daughter's heating.

Have you looked at different burners?

http://www.russianstove.com/brickyard/s ... 7230345155
http://www.permies.com/forums/f-55/stoves
http://donkey32.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=discuss
http://www.rocketstoves.com

Very low wood consumption = Smaller trailer loads.

woodburner wrote:Have you looked at different burners?

http://www.russianstove.com/brickyard/s ... 7230345155
http://www.permies.com/forums/f-55/stoves
http://donkey32.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=discuss
http://www.rocketstoves.com

Very low wood consumption = Smaller trailer loads.

True but a BTU is a BTU. You need enough stove to burn enough wood to equal the heat loss from your living space after all efficiency factors and stack losses. You can't heat Buckingham palace with one can of Sterno no matter how efficient the stove is.

A BTU may be a BTU, but some stoves throw the fuel away in the form of smoke and use four times as much wood for the same comfort level. The trick is to heat the people, not the building. It doesn't matter what you do when fuel is abundant, but when there's not much you need all the efficiency you can get. I would prefer a strawbale house to Buckingham Palace in those circumstances, come to that, in any other circumstances too.